PRAMOD SINGH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The informant filed a complaint under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Amb, District Una, H.P. stating that petitioner no. 3 and the informant met each other in December 2018. Petitioner No. 3 started exchanging messages through social media. They fell in love with each other. They met each other on 2/1/2019 at Bombay Picnic Spot. Petitioner No. 3 offered to solemnize marriage with the informant but she declined by saying that she was only aged 20 years and could not perform marriage without the consent of her parents. The petitioner no. 3 told the informant in February 2019 that he had made arrangements for the performance of the marriage and they would have to go to Naddi, Tehsil Dharamshala. Petitioner No.3 and the informant went to Naddi on 10/2/2019 where they stayed in a hotel named Naddi Hills. Petitioner No. 3 told the informant that marriage would be solemnized on the next day and they should stay in one room. The informant asked petitioner no. 3 to book a separate room but he assured that he would not touch her until the solemnization of the marriage. Petitioner No. 3 attempted to perform sexual intercourse with the informant but she resisted. Petitioner No. 3 said that he would disclose her relationship to her parents and relatives. The informant did not agree. The petitioner no. 3 opened his bag, took out a knife and raped the petitioner. He also video-recorded the incident. Petitioner No. 3 did not solemnize the marriage on the next day as promised. He assured to solemnize the marriage after some time. He uploaded the screenshot of the video on social media. These were also sent to the four College students where the informant was studying. The informant confronted petitioner no.3 who threatened to circulate the video amongst the general public. He took the informant to Nagrota and made her to spend one night in Sky Blue Hotel, where he again raped her. Petitioner No. 3 again took the informant to Naddi, where he raped her after threatening that he would make the video viral. Subsequently, he edited the video and put it on the social media. The informant was defamed in the College. The matter was brought to the notice of petitioner no. 1 and 2. Father of the petitioner no. 3 levelled false allegations against the informant and her mother. The matter was brought to the notice of the Crime Branch, Dharamshala. The police called petitioner no. 3 and his relatives. Petitioner No. 3 and his relatives visited the Crime Branch on 11/4/2019, where he admitted his guilt. He stated that he was ready to perform marriage with the informant. The marriage was solemnized between the parties on 9/5/2019. The informant went to the house of the petitioners but they refused to keep her in their house. Petitioner No. 3 gave beatings to the informant. He stated that he had solemnized the marriage with the informant to wriggle out of the consequences of the complaint made to the police and he had no intention to marry the informant. The informant narrated all these facts to her mother, who made a complaint to the police. The police called the petitioner no. 3 and he apologized before the police. The informant went to Chandigarh. Petitioner no. 3 visited and abused her in Chandigarh. He threatened to divorce the informant. The Panchayat was convened in which the petitioner no. 3, his father and relatives visited but the matter could not be reconciled. The police registered the FIR, conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet against petitioner no .3 for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 376, 354, 354-C, 420, 384, 506, 498-A, 120-B of IPC and Sec. 66(c), 67(a) of Information Technology Act, against petitioner no. 1 for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 498-A, 506, 420 and 509 of IPC and against petitioner no. 2 for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 498-A and 509 of IPC.

(2.) The petitioners filed the present petition seeking the quashing of FIR. It was asserted that the allegations in the FIR do not constitute the commission of any offence. Petitioner No. 3 and the informant were in relation with each other. The parties entered into a compromise and solemnized the marriage. The marriage registration certificate was also issued. The dispute between the parties is a matrimonial dispute. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequent proceedings be quashed.

(3.) A status report was filed by the police reproducing the FIR and the details of the investigation.